If the rich people keep the money they invest it in something productive. If the government takes the money, they waste it.
I need credible sources for why its a bad idea to tax the rich
- Thread starter Wolverine302
- Start date
If the rich people keep the money they invest it in something productive. If the government takes the money, they waste it.
Bob Murphy came up with this amusing analogy for solving world's problems by taxation: So you and your son go the park for a stroll and are having a sandwich on the way when you suddenly decide to solve world hunger because some homeless child is surely going hungry somewhere. So you point to the chunky kid there(rich guy with lots of money) and ask you son to grab a portion of his lunch so that we could give it to the vagrant's son down by the highway.
does that ever happen? if not,why assume it will happen if you wear an uniform that says IRS on it?
does that ever happen? if not,why assume it will happen if you wear an uniform that says IRS on it?
SilverDollarStandard
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 14
Not sure what would be considered a "credible source" but I would just use common sense.
There are only three ways a businessperson can react to a tax increase, they can decrease their profits, decrease wages, and/or increase prices. Any combination of these three things hurts consumers, wage-earners, and other businesspeople. The latter two are rather obvious so people tend to think that decreasing a businessperson's profits is the ideal situation but allow me to explain why this is also bad for average folks.
If a businessperson decreases his profits that means he/she either has less to invest into future production and/or less to spend on personal consumption. In the first case this hurts the wage earner and the consumer because it means he/she will earn less and/or pay more than would otherwise have been the case because investments would have tended to increase productivity, it also hurts the businesspeople who would have produced the factors of production that would have been invested in and of course the wage-earners who work for them. In the second case that the business person cuts back on consumption also hurts other businesspeople who would have produced those consumable goods that would have been demanded had the government not taxed more, this also hurts wage-earners who work for them as well.
Of course this model does not account for the possibility of benefits deriving whatever the government spends the money on, so the bottom line the philosophical question comes down to "Who do you think will spend the money more wisely you or the government?". I tend to think that a large bureaucracy with little to no accountability would tend to squander the money while individuals would be much more likely to exercise thrift and get more bang for their buck so to speak, of course that is just my opinion I don't have any credible sources to back that up other than my own critical thinking skills. The fact that much of what the government does with ridiculous regulations, wars, and whatnought actually hurts the economy further tends to reinforce my opinion.
Ultimately I think a good question for people is, If you think the government will spend your money more wisely than you why not give all your money to the government?", they will probably say but I need that money for rent, food, other bills and whatnought and you can cite that as proof that the government would not spend the money as wisely as they would. For if the government was spending the money as wisely as they would surely they would have provided for their rent, food, and other necessities? The truth is everyone knows giving money to the government is a bad investment that is why no one wants to do it because the expected value in return is far less than whatever you pay in, so instead of giving all their money to the government most people tend to spend it themselves on necessities, luxuries, investments etc. which they apparently consider better a deal.
There are only three ways a businessperson can react to a tax increase, they can decrease their profits, decrease wages, and/or increase prices. Any combination of these three things hurts consumers, wage-earners, and other businesspeople. The latter two are rather obvious so people tend to think that decreasing a businessperson's profits is the ideal situation but allow me to explain why this is also bad for average folks.
If a businessperson decreases his profits that means he/she either has less to invest into future production and/or less to spend on personal consumption. In the first case this hurts the wage earner and the consumer because it means he/she will earn less and/or pay more than would otherwise have been the case because investments would have tended to increase productivity, it also hurts the businesspeople who would have produced the factors of production that would have been invested in and of course the wage-earners who work for them. In the second case that the business person cuts back on consumption also hurts other businesspeople who would have produced those consumable goods that would have been demanded had the government not taxed more, this also hurts wage-earners who work for them as well.
Of course this model does not account for the possibility of benefits deriving whatever the government spends the money on, so the bottom line the philosophical question comes down to "Who do you think will spend the money more wisely you or the government?". I tend to think that a large bureaucracy with little to no accountability would tend to squander the money while individuals would be much more likely to exercise thrift and get more bang for their buck so to speak, of course that is just my opinion I don't have any credible sources to back that up other than my own critical thinking skills. The fact that much of what the government does with ridiculous regulations, wars, and whatnought actually hurts the economy further tends to reinforce my opinion.
Ultimately I think a good question for people is, If you think the government will spend your money more wisely than you why not give all your money to the government?", they will probably say but I need that money for rent, food, other bills and whatnought and you can cite that as proof that the government would not spend the money as wisely as they would. For if the government was spending the money as wisely as they would surely they would have provided for their rent, food, and other necessities? The truth is everyone knows giving money to the government is a bad investment that is why no one wants to do it because the expected value in return is far less than whatever you pay in, so instead of giving all their money to the government most people tend to spend it themselves on necessities, luxuries, investments etc. which they apparently consider better a deal.
No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
You can't justify taxing wealth based on the premise of wealth.
Liberty74
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,949
Taxing income is stealing. It's immoral and anti-human. Just because the gangster criminals in Congress pass a law making stealing legal does not mean it's okay.
And when it comes to taxing rich corporations, well, they never pay the tax because those costs are passed down to the poor and middle class in the form of govt induced inflation.
And when it comes to taxing rich corporations, well, they never pay the tax because those costs are passed down to the poor and middle class in the form of govt induced inflation.
Pericles
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,921
Which is preferable - everyone to be poor or everyone to be rich? At the end of the day, the "tax the rich" adherents are attempting to make everyone poor, in order to make everyone dependent on a government that distributes money as the operators of that government see fit.
That is why Democrats like poor people, because their policies create so many of them.
That is why Democrats like poor people, because their policies create so many of them.
Wolverine302
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Messages
- 317
Would you have DSK give a lecture about women's rights?
L
LibForestPaul
Guest
Ask them why they are taxed at all, since they have no income. If one can not incur a loss, as one can with capital gains and investments, one can not incur a profit and have income. You need to redirect and make them pissed off at something else...
L
LibForestPaul
Guest
After that, asked why a doctor, or small business owner should pay for an overpriced cop with an 80k a year salary for life after only 20yrs of "working." or overpriced teacher, and cover their medical as well. Piss them off at government.
Then when they are finally pissed off at government, ask if
a) the CEO is going to pay more taxes and buy a smaller house or
b) the CEO is going to pay more taxes, buy the big house anyway, and give you a paycut.
Works every time for me.
Then when they are finally pissed off at government, ask if
a) the CEO is going to pay more taxes and buy a smaller house or
b) the CEO is going to pay more taxes, buy the big house anyway, and give you a paycut.
Works every time for me.
L
LibForestPaul
Guest
Note, someone needs to share this with Dr. Paul. 50% of people are below average intellegince, get them pissed at what you want them to be pissed at, stop explaining shit in detail.
Similar threads
